God And Human Sacrifices

[Tumah]

So it's just one big coincidence that after Jephthah said to the Lord “If you will let me defeat the Ammonites, I will give you the first thing that comes out of my house when I come back from the victory. . . ." that the "Lord helped [Jephthah] defeat them."

Is that what you want me to believe? REALLY? . . . . . REALLY?

Are you arguing that G-d only gives people victory when they offer sacrifices in return? Why are verses 29-33 not simply background information for the following passage?

I think it's past your bed time, Tumah.

Thanks, but it's 10 am. I think I'm good.

In any case, being omniscient god knew that Jephthah made the promise to him, and that to keep it meant he would incinerate his daughter. Yet god did nothing to stop Jephthah as he had stopped Abraham.

It was G-d who seemed to have told Abraham to do it in the first place. G-d never told Jephthah anything.

God certainly does like a good sacrifice now and then, doesn't he. Even when he hasn't agreed to it.
.

Animal sacrifice, yes.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I only bring this up because Christians like to point out god's great goodness. As one source puts it:

"To say that God is good means that God always acts in accordance to what is right, true, and good. Goodness is part of God’s nature, and He cannot contradict His nature. Holiness and righteousness are part of God’s nature; He cannot do anything that is unholy or unrighteous. God is the standard of all that is good."
source​

Now I don't know about others here on RF, but I don't see making and accepting human sacrifices as a good thing. And, to be honest, I've never heard any Christian who said they were. Furthermore, I consider accepting a human sacrifice in payment for a promise also to be wrong, as I expect most Christians would. Yet the god of Abraham does just that. In the Bible he grants a favor to a guy named Jephthah in return for the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter. And as a burnt offering no less.

Judges 11: 29-39
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah, and he passed through the area of Gilead and Manasseh. He went through the city of Mizpah in Gilead on his way to the land of the Ammonites.

30 Jephthah made a promise to the Lord. He said, “If you will let me defeat the Ammonites, 31 I will give you the first thing that comes out of my house when I come back from the victory. I will give it to the Lord as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went to the land of the Ammonites. He fought the Ammonites, and the Lord helped him defeat them. 33 He defeated them from the city of Aroer to the city of Minnith. Jephthah captured 20 cities. Then he fought the Ammonites to the city of Abel Keramim. The Israelites defeated them. It was a very great defeat for the Ammonites.

34 Jephthah went back to Mizpah. He went to his house, and his daughter came out to meet him. She was playing a tambourine and dancing. She was his only daughter, and Jephthah loved her very much. He did not have any other sons or daughters. 35 When Jephthah saw that his daughter was the first thing to come out of his house, he tore his clothes to show his sadness. Then he said, “Oh, my daughter! You have ruined me! You have made me very sad! I made a promise to the Lord, and I cannot change it!”

36 Then his daughter said to Jephthah, “Father, you have made a promise to the Lord, so keep your promise. Do what you said you would do. After all, the Lord did help you defeat your enemies, the Ammonites.”

37 Then Jephthah’s daughter said to her father, “But do this one thing for me first. Let me be alone for two months. Let me go to the mountains. I will not marry and have children, so let me and my friends go and cry together.”

38 Jephthah said, “Go.” He sent her away for two months. Jephthah’s daughter and her friends stayed in the mountains. They cried for her because she would not marry and have children.

39 At the end of two months, Jephthah’s daughter returned to her father, and Jephthah did what he had promised. ​

Now it may be objected that neither Jephthah nor god knew that Jephthah's daughter would be the first thing to come out of the house, but this simply isn't so. Being omniscient, god certainly knew that when Jephthah returned home the first thing to come out of the house would be his daughter, whom Jephthah would be obligated to sacrifice. In fact, god knew Jephthah’s daughter would be a burnt offering even before he granted him his request. And even if god was not omniscient, because of his divine goodness he would be morally bound to stop Jephthah from incinerating his daughter, just as he stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son. Wouldn't you feel morally bound to stop someone from sacrificing the life of another? Although, after reading that "God is the standard of all that is good" maybe human sacrifice isn't all that bad after all.

In any case, such an intervention never took place. Jephthah had made a deal with god for a favor, and in turn for granting this favor god accepted the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. Thing is, god had nothing to gain by the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, yet he willingly accepted it. He could have said, No.


So, anyone up to defending god's inhumane action, or is it more convenient to forget about it and go on to some inane thread like TRUMP: The Movie?

.

.

Well first, my question would be, where do you get that God is Omniscient ?
Can you give just one book and chapter and verse out of the Bible that will show, God as being Omniscient as you say.

Many people will say that God is Omniscient, which means( all knowing) people say this, but where in the bible does the bible say this. Where's the book and chapter and verses that will support this. But there are many things in the bible that will show that God is not Omniscient as people say.

Now as for the book of Judges 11.
Did you even bother to read the whole chapter, had you, you would haved found that Jeph-thah daughter gave her permission, so it wasn't all up to Jeph-thah, but also his daughter giving her permission to go along with her father.

You make sound as though his daughter had no say in the matter, but she did, and she gave her permission to her father

Seeing she's a woman of age to have children of her own. And she gave her permission to her father.

As it is, you just cherry pick verse that you wanted to only support your agenda.

To make it sound it was all the Lord's doings, Unto which it wasn't, Jeph-thah made the vow to the Lord. So it was out of Jeph-thah mouth came the vow.
And so it was Jeph-thah daughter that gave her permission to her father to go thru with his vow.
So it wasn't the Lord's doings, but
Jeph-thah doings, that out of his mouth came forth the vow. To take his daughter life.
Seeing that you didn't notice, about what is happening here with Jeph-thah and his daughter. Who else gave their son, but it taken the son permission for his life to be taken on the cross.
As was the daughter obedience to her father to give her life, As was Christ Jesus obedience to his Father to gave his life on the cross.

 

[ecco]

What you said, is a deal. What Jephthah said, is not.

ecco quietly repeats to himself "I swear! If Tumah doesn't respond, I'm going to leave RF forever!"​

Is that a proposed deal or is that an oath?
If you think it's a deal, I can delete this response.

Oh, please, don't delete your response. It serves as a wonderful example of a failed attempt at making an analogy.


Let's carefully look at the wording of your oath and Jephthah's deal.

Your Version (YV)

ecco quietly repeats to himself "I swear! If Tumah doesn't respond, I'm going to leave RF forever!"
​

Bible:

Jephthah made this vow to the LORD: "If indeed You will deliver the Ammonites into my hands,
then whatever comes out of the door of my house to greet me on my triumphant return from the Ammonites will belong to the LORD, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering."
​

• In YV: ecco is repeating to himself - he is musing. Making an oath to oneself (or even a deal with oneself) is meaningless since there is no guarantee of enforcement of the terms.
• In Bible: Jephthah is addressing his God - a Supreme Being that has the ability to control the outcome of wars.

• In YV: The ecco makes a third party reference to Tumah. Tumah is not even aware of the "swear". If Tumah doesn't respond, ecco may or may not leave RF. Since Tumah is not even aware of the swear, the ecco serves no punishment is he stays.
• In Bible: The Jephthah addresses God in the first person. This is a direct communication with the Supreme Being that has the ability to control the outcome of wars.

​

• In YV: If ecco chooses to ignore the terms, nothing will happen since no one knows about the swear except ecco. If ecco chooses to accept the terms, he can leave and find another forum.
• In Bible: If Jephthah chooses to ignore the terms, the repercussions could indeed be great. We know God's penchant for spectacle - if from the Noah story if nothing else. God could gather the villagers and proclaim: Jephthah swore an oath to Me that, if I helped him, he would give his daughter as a burnt offering. A deal is a deal. I upheld my end. He chose to renege. As punishment, I have taken ten virgins. They are all here in the circle. Behold my might as I burn them to a crisp. FLASH BANG CRISP ASHES. Knowing his fearsome and vengeful God, Jephthah chooses to accede to the terms, he crisps his own daughter.

 

[ecco]

Now as for the book of Judges 11.
Did you even bother to read the whole chapter, had you, you would haved found that Jeph-thah daughter gave her permission, so it wasn't all up to Jeph-thah, but also his daughter giving her permission to go along with her father.

You make sound as though his daughter had no say in the matter, but she did, and she gave her permission to her father

Seeing she's a woman of age to have children of her own. And she gave her permission to her father.

You mean in the same way the Virgin Mary gave consent to be sexually assaulted by the Holy Ghost?

You mean in the same way that women, throughout the ages, have given men in power "consent" to be sexually assaulted?

So it wasn't the Lord's doings, but Jeph-thah doings, that out of his mouth came forth the vow. To take his daughter life.

Indeed. And your God agreed. And your God helped Jephthah vanquish his enemies. Your God did his part and had every right to expect, demand if necessary, that Jephthah did his part. Any God who thought human sacrifice to be wrong could have stepped in and prevented the burning. HE didn't.

As was Christ Jesus obedience to his Father to gave his life on the cross.

Obedience to His Father? Did God demand Jesus be crucified?

Furthermore "gave his life" is nonsensical phrasing. Jesus swapped His earthly existence for His Heavenly existence. That's not a bad trade. Isn't that what you are looking forward to?

 

[Kenny]

By one huge implication.

1) Jephthah and god made a deal

"30 Jephthah made a promise to the Lord."
​

2) God held up his end of the bargain.

"32 Then Jephthah went to the land of the Ammonites. He fought the Ammonites, and the Lord helped him defeat them."​

3) Jephthah recognized his obligation to keep his end of the bargain just as god had.

"35 . . . I made a promise to the Lord, and I cannot change it!”
​

4) Jephthah kept his promise

39 At the end of two months, Jephthah’s daughter returned to her father, and Jephthah did what he had promised.
​

In light of the fact that at no time did god intervene in the sacrifice, as he did in the case of the Abraham incident, there's absolutely no reason to believe that, having granted Jephthah his request, god let him off the hook. If god had it would have been mentioned, as it was in Abraham's sacrifice. Nope, according to the story god remained silent while Jephthah incinerated his daughter, indicating the sacrifice was acceptable with god. Saying that god accepted the sacrifice is totally unnecessary.

I highlighted your beautiful statement which understood, my implication, "your interpretation". I understand that you always want to interpret in a negative way, as your history shows, but it is always at the expense of every other scripture. Like mining a statement outside of its context.

To whit:

1) you assume that if God didn't stop it, He approves of it... which scripturally is untrue. God didn't want a king over Israel, the people did and so the people got it. Or, God wanted Israel to enter into the promise land, the first group wanted to go back to Egypt so they didn't enter into the promised land. Nothing there says that God approved of it.

2) That if man makes a vow, contrary to what God wants, that man can't change the vow. King Saul vowed to God that no one should eat until the last enemy was dead and any violated would be killed. His son ate honey, the people said don't kill him, and Saul didn't kill him and God didn't intervene. Man has free will and many things are done "In the name of God" which He didn't approve of.

3) Abraham's "purposed sacrifice" had nothing to do with Isaac, which never happened, but had to do with Jesus.

4) That just because God promised He would do something and man adds his two bits that somehow that translates that God will now not do it. Saul didn't fulfill God's commandments on the destruction of an enemy (Agag), but that didn't change what God said He was going to do.

5) Just because @Skwim interprets something through what he desires it to say, doesn't mean he is correct... after all, you don't want it to be true.

Have a nice day.... keep trying!

 

[Tumah]

Oh, please, don't delete your response. It serves as a wonderful example of a failed attempt at making an analogy.


Let's carefully look at the wording of your oath and Jephthah's deal.

Your Version (YV)

ecco quietly repeats to himself "I swear! If Tumah doesn't respond, I'm going to leave RF forever!"
​

Bible:

Jephthah made this vow to the LORD: "If indeed You will deliver the Ammonites into my hands,
then whatever comes out of the door of my house to greet me on my triumphant return from the Ammonites will belong to the LORD, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering."
​

• In YV: ecco is repeating to himself - he is musing. Making an oath to oneself (or even a deal with oneself) is meaningless since there is no guarantee of enforcement of the terms.
• In Bible: Jephthah is addressing his God - a Supreme Being that has the ability to control the outcome of wars.

• In YV: The ecco makes a third party reference to Tumah. Tumah is not even aware of the "swear". If Tumah doesn't respond, ecco may or may not leave RF. Since Tumah is not even aware of the swear, the ecco serves no punishment is he stays.
• In Bible: The Jephthah addresses God in the first person. This is a direct communication with the Supreme Being that has the ability to control the outcome of wars.

​

• In YV: If ecco chooses to ignore the terms, nothing will happen since no one knows about the swear except ecco. If ecco chooses to accept the terms, he can leave and find another forum.
• In Bible: If Jephthah chooses to ignore the terms, the repercussions could indeed be great. We know God's penchant for spectacle - if from the Noah story if nothing else. God could gather the villagers and proclaim: Jephthah swore an oath to Me that, if I helped him, he would give his daughter as a burnt offering. A deal is a deal. I upheld my end. He chose to renege. As punishment, I have taken ten virgins. They are all here in the circle. Behold my might as I burn them to a crisp. FLASH BANG CRISP ASHES. Knowing his fearsome and vengeful God, Jephthah chooses to accede to the terms, he crisps his own daughter.

In Judaism, if you make an oath, you are required to fulfill it (Deut. 23:24). That means, if you were Jewish and made such an oath, and I didn't respond to your post, you'd be Biblically forbidden from returning to RF. Jephthah is Biblically bound to his oath, whether anyone hears him or not and that's kind of an underlying concept of oaths in the Tanach (Num. 30, Deut. 23:22-24). There's an expectation that people are making these private oaths committing themselves to donating various items to G-d. In fact, even the NT notes it in the diatribe about donating all your property to the Temple instead of using it to support your parents.
Here is an example that shows that the purpose of the oath is not to sway G-d. In Gen. 28:15 G-d tells Jacob that He's going to take care of him in whatever he does. Immediately after waking up in verse 20, Jacob takes an oath stating almost the exact same thing. It doesn't seem likely that Jacob was trying to make a deal to convince G-d to do something He had already committed Himself to doing.
It's a thing they did.

 

[ecco]

In Judaism, if you make an oath, you are required to fulfill it (Deut. 23:24). That means, if you were Jewish and made such an oath, and I didn't respond to your post, you'd be Biblically forbidden from returning to RF. Jephthah is Biblically bound to his oath, whether anyone hears him or not and that's kind of an underlying concept of oaths in the Tanach (Num. 30, Deut. 23:22-24). There's an expectation that people are making these private oaths committing themselves to donating various items to G-d. In fact, even the NT notes it in the diatribe about donating all your property to the Temple instead of using it to support your parents.
Here is an example that shows that the purpose of the oath is not to sway G-d. In Gen. 28:15 G-d tells Jacob that He's going to take care of him in whatever he does. Immediately after waking up in verse 20, Jacob takes an oath stating almost the exact same thing. It doesn't seem likely that Jacob was trying to make a deal to convince G-d to do something He had already committed Himself to doing.
It's a thing they did.

When Jep took/made his oath, God could have said: "Now wait a minute, what makes you think I want a burnt offering?"
HE didn't. HIS silence was evidence of his acquiescence.

HIS acquiescence was further demonstrated by HIS helping Jep be victorious in his quest.

When Jep was going to torch his daughter, God could have said: "Now wait a minute, what makes you think I want a burnt offering?"

HE didn't. HIS silence was evidence of his acquiescence.

 

[Tumah]

When Jep took/made his oath, God could have said: "Now wait a minute, what makes you think I want a burnt offering?"
HE didn't. HIS silence was evidence of his acquiescence.

HIS acquiescence was further demonstrated by HIS helping Jep be victorious in his quest.

When Jep was going to torch his daughter, God could have said: "Now wait a minute, what makes you think I want a burnt offering?"

HE didn't. HIS silence was evidence of his acquiescence.

Definitely not. Jephthah wasn't a prophet. We don't find G-d speaking to anyone but prophets. There are plenty of occasions throughout Tanach where G-d remains silent when a person does something wrong. His silence here proves nothing. The fact that Jephthah was victorious also proves nothing, unless you can prove that had Jephthah not made his vow, G-d would not have made him victorious.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You mean in the same way the Virgin Mary gave consent to be sexually assaulted by the Holy Ghost?

You mean in the same way that women, throughout the ages, have given men in power "consent" to be sexually assaulted?


Indeed. And your God agreed. And your God helped Jephthah vanquish his enemies. Your God did his part and had every right to expect, demand if necessary, that Jephthah did his part. Any God who thought human sacrifice to be wrong could have stepped in and prevented the burning. HE didn't.



Obedience to His Father? Did God demand Jesus be crucified?

Furthermore "gave his life" is nonsensical phrasing. Jesus swapped His earthly existence for His Heavenly existence. That's not a bad trade. Isn't that what you are looking forward to?

Maybe you should read Judges 11, for yourself also.
Seeing it was her father that made the vow, without first asking her first. God had nothing to with it.
It was Jeph-thah, That made the vow in the first place, without any consent from his daughter.

So before you go jumping trying to put the blame on God. You should read Judges chapter 11, first.
As God had nothing to with Jeph-thah making the vow. It's all on Jeph-thah and no one else.

 

[ecco]

Definitely not. Jephthah wasn't a prophet. We don't find G-d speaking to anyone but prophets. There are plenty of occasions throughout Tanach where G-d remains silent when a person does something wrong. His silence here proves nothing. The fact that Jephthah was victorious also proves nothing, unless you can prove that had Jephthah not made his vow, G-d would not have made him victorious.

Seriously? You want to use to word "prove" in a discussion of fictional tales written thousands of years ago by people trying to instill fear of and obedience to a mythical entity?

How about you first prove that there ever was a Jephthah.

 

[Tumah]

Seriously? You want to use to word "prove" in a discussion of fictional tales written thousands of years ago by people trying to instill fear of and obedience to a mythical entity?

How about you first prove that there ever was a Jephthah.

If that's the best response you have, then I guess we're done here.

 

[Skwim]

Well first, my question would be, where do you get that God is Omniscient ?

From the fact that it's a very common Christian belief. (91% of all protestants believe it.)

Want to be in the 9% or 13% minority, so be it.

Now as for the book of Judges 11.
Did you even bother to read the whole chapter, had you, you would haved found that Jeph-thah daughter gave her permission, so it wasn't all up to Jeph-thah, but also his daughter giving her permission to go along with her father.

You make sound as though his daughter had no say in the matter, but she did, and she gave her permission to her father

Seeing she's a woman of age to have children of her own. And she gave her permission to her father.

As it is, you just cherry pick verse that you wanted to only support your agenda.

To make it sound it was all the Lord's doings, Unto which it wasn't, Jeph-thah made the vow to the Lord. So it was out of Jeph-thah mouth came the vow.
And so it was Jeph-thah daughter that gave her permission to her father to go thru with his vow.
So it wasn't the Lord's doings, but
Jeph-thah doings, that out of his mouth came forth the vow. To take his daughter life.
Seeing that you didn't notice, about what is happening here with Jeph-thah and his daughter. Who else gave their son, but it taken the son permission for his life to be taken on the cross.
As was the daughter obedience to her father to give her life, As was Christ Jesus obedience to his Father to gave his life on the cross.

The issue isn't what Jephthah or his daughter wanted, but what god thinks is fine and dandy: human sacrifices.


.

 

[Skwim]

I highlighted your beautiful statement which understood, my implication, "your interpretation". I understand that you always want to interpret in a negative way, as your history shows, but it is always at the expense of every other scripture. Like mining a statement outside of its context.

To whit:

1) you assume that if God didn't stop it, He approves of it... which scripturally is untrue. God didn't want a king over Israel, the people did and so the people got it. Or, God wanted Israel to enter into the promise land, the first group wanted to go back to Egypt so they didn't enter into the promised land. Nothing there says that God approved of it.

2) That if man makes a vow, contrary to what God wants, that man can't change the vow. King Saul vowed to God that no one should eat until the last enemy was dead and any violated would be killed. His son ate honey, the people said don't kill him, and Saul didn't kill him and God didn't intervene. Man has free will and many things are done "In the name of God" which He didn't approve of.

3) Abraham's "purposed sacrifice" had nothing to do with Isaac, which never happened, but had to do with Jesus.

4) That just because God promised He would do something and man adds his two bits that somehow that translates that God will now not do it. Saul didn't fulfill God's commandments on the destruction of an enemy (Agag), but that didn't change what God said He was going to do.

5) Just because @Skwim interprets something through what he desires it to say, doesn't mean he is correct... after all, you don't want it to be true.

Have a nice day.... keep trying!

Then I guess we're at logger heads. I feel the passage implies on thing: god didn't care that Jephthah incinerated his daughter, and you believe it implies something else: god did care that Jephthah incinerated his daughter, but decided she wasn't worth saving.

.

 

[Kenny]

Then I guess we're at logger heads. I feel the passage implies on thing: god didn't care that Jephthah incinerated his daughter, and you believe it implies something else: god did care that Jephthah incinerated his daughter, but decided she wasn't worth saving.

.

No, just that He didn't make robots as you would have desired. To me when God says "The world is yours to have dominion in", I tend to take it for what it means... but then again, I'm not Skwim who likes it to say something else?

Of course "The issue isn't what Jephthah or his daughter wanted, but what god thinks is fine and dandy: human sacrifices." we all know that it doesn't matter what the Bible say, it is what Skwim says that is important.

 

[Skwim]

No, just that He didn't make robots as you would have desired. To me when God says "The world is yours to have dominion in", I tend to take it for what it means...

Except when he goes back on his word and decides to interfere.

but then again, I'm not Skwim who likes it to say something else?

Nah. I got you dead to rights, KenS.

Of course "The issue isn't what Jephthah or his daughter wanted, but what god thinks is fine and dandy: human sacrifices."
we all know that it doesn't matter what the Bible say, it is what Skwim says that is important.

Hey! Can I help it that when I see a cow I can identify it as a cow?

.
.

 

[Kenny]

Except when he goes back on his word and decides to interfere.

​

I believe it was THROUGH Noah through covenant.

Nah. I got you dead to rights, KenS.


Hey! Can I help it that when I see a cow I can identify it as a cow?

.
.

It looked more like cow patties so I thought I would call it out.

 

[ecco]

The fact that Jephthah was victorious also proves nothing, unless you can prove that had Jephthah not made his vow, G-d would not have made him victorious.

How about you first prove that there ever was a Jephthah.

If that's the best response you have, then I guess we're done here.

Oh, I see.

When you ask me to prove something that is unprovable, that's acceptable.
When I ask you to prove something that is provable, you chide me for giving a poor response and end the conversation.

Is that how they taught you to debate in your Hebrew Studies classes?

 

[Tumah]

Oh, I see.

When you ask me to prove something that is unprovable, that's acceptable.
When I ask you to prove something that is provable, you chide me for giving a poor response and end the conversation.

Is that how they taught you to debate in your Hebrew Studies classes?

When I ask you to prove something in the context of the passage, then it's acceptable. When you can no longer find supporting arguments, so you ask me to prove the story happened altogether, we are already no longer in the context of the same discussion. It doesn't matter whether we believe the story happened or not, because that's not the subject of this thread. We're not discussing whether the narrative happened or not, we're trying to discuss what narrative the passage is trying to convey. If we were having this argument about the nature of the relationship between those two boys in Great Expectations, would you be able to see how "well you don't believe this story really took place anyway", would be out of place?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I only bring this up because Christians like to point out god's great goodness. As one source puts it:

"To say that God is good means that God always acts in accordance to what is right, true, and good. Goodness is part of God’s nature, and He cannot contradict His nature. Holiness and righteousness are part of God’s nature; He cannot do anything that is unholy or unrighteous. God is the standard of all that is good."
source​

Now I don't know about others here on RF, but I don't see making and accepting human sacrifices as a good thing. And, to be honest, I've never heard any Christian who said they were. Furthermore, I consider accepting a human sacrifice in payment for a promise also to be wrong, as I expect most Christians would. Yet the god of Abraham does just that. In the Bible he grants a favor to a guy named Jephthah in return for the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter. And as a burnt offering no less.

Judges 11: 29-39
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah, and he passed through the area of Gilead and Manasseh. He went through the city of Mizpah in Gilead on his way to the land of the Ammonites.

30 Jephthah made a promise to the Lord. He said, “If you will let me defeat the Ammonites, 31 I will give you the first thing that comes out of my house when I come back from the victory. I will give it to the Lord as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went to the land of the Ammonites. He fought the Ammonites, and the Lord helped him defeat them. 33 He defeated them from the city of Aroer to the city of Minnith. Jephthah captured 20 cities. Then he fought the Ammonites to the city of Abel Keramim. The Israelites defeated them. It was a very great defeat for the Ammonites.

34 Jephthah went back to Mizpah. He went to his house, and his daughter came out to meet him. She was playing a tambourine and dancing. She was his only daughter, and Jephthah loved her very much. He did not have any other sons or daughters. 35 When Jephthah saw that his daughter was the first thing to come out of his house, he tore his clothes to show his sadness. Then he said, “Oh, my daughter! You have ruined me! You have made me very sad! I made a promise to the Lord, and I cannot change it!”

36 Then his daughter said to Jephthah, “Father, you have made a promise to the Lord, so keep your promise. Do what you said you would do. After all, the Lord did help you defeat your enemies, the Ammonites.”

37 Then Jephthah’s daughter said to her father, “But do this one thing for me first. Let me be alone for two months. Let me go to the mountains. I will not marry and have children, so let me and my friends go and cry together.”

38 Jephthah said, “Go.” He sent her away for two months. Jephthah’s daughter and her friends stayed in the mountains. They cried for her because she would not marry and have children.

39 At the end of two months, Jephthah’s daughter returned to her father, and Jephthah did what he had promised. ​

Now it may be objected that neither Jephthah nor god knew that Jephthah's daughter would be the first thing to come out of the house, but this simply isn't so. Being omniscient, god certainly knew that when Jephthah returned home the first thing to come out of the house would be his daughter, whom Jephthah would be obligated to sacrifice. In fact, god knew Jephthah’s daughter would be a burnt offering even before he granted him his request. And even if god was not omniscient, because of his divine goodness he would be morally bound to stop Jephthah from incinerating his daughter, just as he stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son. Wouldn't you feel morally bound to stop someone from sacrificing the life of another? Although, after reading that "God is the standard of all that is good" maybe human sacrifice isn't all that bad after all.

In any case, such an intervention never took place. Jephthah had made a deal with god for a favor, and in turn for granting this favor god accepted the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. Thing is, god had nothing to gain by the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, yet he willingly accepted it. He could have said, No.


So, anyone up to defending god's inhumane action, or is it more convenient to forget about it and go on to some inane thread like TRUMP: The Movie?

.

.

I see what your saying, so that means.
Let's for say.
That a person makes a promise to another person, and the person who made the promise and Acts upon their promise, The other person is just as much at fault, to haved accepted their promise than the one who not only made the promise But also acted upon their promise, but the other person is just as much at fault, for accepting their promise.

Try to convince a judge and jury on that one and see how far that will go.

The one who makes a promise and then follows thru on their promise, is the guilty one, and not the other one, even though they accepted the promise. It's all lays on the other person who committed the act, the fault lays on.

Just because someone makes a promise to someone to take someone's else's life, and the other person accept's their promise, does not mean, the person who accepted the promise, is at fault.

So let's see if were getting this right,, That if someone makes you a promise, just remember your just as much at fault as they are, for accepting their promise.
So if someone makes you a promise, that they will robb a bank and they followed thru on it. That means your just as much at fault, for accepting their promise. So if they go to prison, That means you also go to prison for accepting their promise.
This is what your saying Right.

Now let's watch what some lame exuse you'll come up with, seeing you have in trap yourself.

Just remember, whoever makes you a promise and follows thru on their promise, Your just as much at fault as they are, for accepting their promise.
this is what your saying.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Are you arguing that G-d only gives people victory when they offer sacrifices in return? Why are verses 29-33 not simply background information for the following passage?


Thanks, but it's 10 am. I think I'm good.


It was G-d who seemed to have told Abraham to do it in the first place. G-d never told Jephthah anything.


Animal sacrifice, yes.

If I may say, God never twisted Jeph-thah arm for Jeph-thah, to keep his end of his promise either. So it was all on Jeph-thah to either go thru with his promise or not go thru on his promise.
So as we find, God didn't say anything one way or the other. So it was all on Jeph-thah to do or not to do.